The New Republic

"Fortunately, the fiscal cliff offered Obama a chance to solve both these problems." You forget, he negotiated the fiscal cliff at gunpoint; and even then, the hapless, clueless, blinking community organizer managed to get a deal that, strategically, placed him in the "fortunate" position that you all recognise. So if he could get what appears to everyone here as a good deal back then and under pressure, it is to be assumed that he is not as hapless or clueless as all that. I think that, based on what we know of the 2010 and 2011 deals, the primary consideration for Obama is the 2 million unemployed, and the February debt limit. Yes, he could conceivably get a good deal on taxes after January, but it is not at all clear that he could get everything he wants. McConnell filibestered his own bill, for Heaven's sake. You cannot trust these oiks not to push the US into the abyss - and in this sense, and only in this sense, a deal is better than none. Bear in mind that Boehner sill has to round up his pitch-form carrying sans-culottes. This is not a given.

- icarus-r

December 31, 2012 at 1:29pm

Told you so. Only the insanity of the Repubs might save the Dems. Wre'll soon hear from BHO and Senate leaders how pleased they are that the "Repubs are a party they can do business with" . Heard THAT one before???

- drofnats1

December 31, 2012 at 3:05pm

Icarus, I've had it with Obama. I voted for him, but he's a wimp. A highly disappointing wimp.

- MOLLYSIMON

December 31, 2012 at 3:38pm

you are a true idiot drofnats, willing to screw over millions of poor working class families and unemployed for no other reason then you are a total ahole. You tell me how Obama can get an extension of the EITC, ui benefits, child tax credit, and tuition credit through the next Congress? So he will be able to "cut" taxes to what they are right now. Big fucking deal. My family's income will go down at leat $100 a week if all these things expire. And 2 million Americans would be ruined. So you truly are vile.

- blackton

December 31, 2012 at 3:49pm

Molly - it is possible that he is a "wimp", though I suspect that Romney and Ryan and Adelson and the Koch brothers thought so as well, and thus underestimated him, to their utter bafflement and shock. I carry no water for him or his administration, but having been on the receiving end of "wimp" and "incompetent" accusations myself over a deal I was negotiating, I have some sympathy for the guy. At the time, the other side would initial an agreement, go back and then come and ask for more. We had the option of going to court, and a good case too. And the clients were apoplectic that we advised negotiations rather than fighting them all the way. The wimp accusation came when I said it's better to get an agreement rather than precipitate a crisis by going to court; the incompetence charge was made when we had to renegotiate what we thought was an agreed deal, because the other side reneged on the deal. You know what - fifteen years and close to a billion dollars in sales and 45000 jobs saved, my own conscience is clear. (Had we gone to court, we would have won a moral victory but got zilch in material terms after three years of expensive litigation.) There are two million people on unemployment. For them, the fiscal cliff is a real cliff. There are tens of millions of people who will see their take-home pay reduced - for how long, God only knows. Then there is a debt ceiling coming up - and the threat of a nihilistic Republican Party forcing the US to default. You want calamity ... there you have it. Is Obama a wimp for doing what he can to save the US from all that? There are times when politicking has to give way to governing. Obama is doing the governing; the politicking can wait when people's livelihoods are not at stake.

- icarus-r

December 31, 2012 at 3:57pm

Blackie - there is a primal urge to stick it to the other guy; but from the comfort of our homes, we forget that there are real people at the end of those UI benefits. Obama's problem, if there is one, is that he thinking about those people rather than strategizing. A wimp? Would that we had more of them in government.

- icarus-r

December 31, 2012 at 4:00pm

We'll see. All's well that ends well, and I think we're on the cusp of a boom.

- Robert Powell

December 31, 2012 at 4:01pm

Sorry, blackton, but Molly Simon is right. Obama could have everything you want and more if he were willing to call the Republicans' bluff and go over the so-called, non-existent cliff. Obama isn't saving us, or you, from anything. He is merely setting up the next debacle in which he claims to have a bottom line but doesn't, as Scheiber points out. The state of your conscience, icarus, tells us nothing at all about Obama's negotiating skills, or lack of them. What Obama has set up, especially if he makes the Bush tax cuts permanent, is the raid on social security and Medicare to balance the budget. What will you say then about everything that has been saved? Nothing has been saved. Obama has turned tail and they will come after him, even more inflamed by their insanity. At some point, you have to have the courage to face the nuts down. No one says that is painless. "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." Winston Churchill.

- roidubouloi

December 31, 2012 at 4:06pm

Strategizing? Bullshit.

- roidubouloi

December 31, 2012 at 4:07pm

Et tu, roid? What with WWII quotes? This is not war; the fate of Western Civilisation is not at stake; the Republicans have neither the leadership nor the cohesion of the most disorganised Italian fascist unit; Obama is not Neville Chamberlain; and the fiscal cliff is not Munich. Get a grip. I start with a simple premise: all the facts that are before the pundits are also before Obama and his administration. And all the options that are before us are also before them. It is not Obama that is negotiating, all by himself. He has a whole political and bureaucratic machine that gives him advice. Unless they are all - to the last man or woman - bereft of negotiating skills and common sense, this wailing about Obama's negotiating skills is so much hooey. And this is not about honour. It's about keeping the cheques coming. The question is: what do you do for the 2 million people whose UI cheques end on January 1? Nothing is painless, but who suffers the pain?

- icarus-r

December 31, 2012 at 4:42pm

Not to worry guys; the crazy-a** GOP in the so-called House of Representatives, aka, the zoo, no insult to zoo creatures, won't vote. Nuts. I feel awful for the people who are going to be hurt by this. Hopefully, the unemployed and other vulnerable people won't have to wait long for responsible people to initiate legislation to extend benefits and otherwise, avoid the mindless chopping created by the Republicans.

- Sophia

December 31, 2012 at 4:57pm

PS, "people who will be hurt by this" equal most of us, one way or another, unless Congress acts quickly to help.

- Sophia

December 31, 2012 at 4:58pm

PS, this doesn't mean it wasn't a bad deal. It was. But still. People getting cut off tomorrow isn't so good. And raiding SS and Medicare is catastrophic and stupid, the very idea. My G*d what has become of our country.

- Sophia

December 31, 2012 at 4:59pm

I'm also curious: with drofnats it's Neville Chamberlain, with roid it's Churchill. I mean, come on guys! I too am in favor of the over-the-cliff-first option for a number of reasons laid out over the last couple of weeks. But -- big 'but' -- I don't go around posturing as if it's Munich in 1938, which does nothing but drain out any force or conviction from the original, quite legitimate, argument.

- ironyroad

December 31, 2012 at 6:09pm

Republicans are convinced they gave away the farm on this deal. That's the way fanatics think. I have seen them in the media promising to get revenge for weeks even before this deal. And they stated the way they're going to do it is on the debt ceiling. They want severe budget cuts above all else. They wouldn't care if a single new job were ever created in America, as long as they can under-fund social programs and education and regulatory agencies. Will Obama let them run over him again? I say yes. Fasten your seat belts, we're in for a bumpy ride.

- magboy47.

December 31, 2012 at 7:54pm

Roi, upon what basis does Obama have to get Republicans to extend UI, EITC, child tax credit, or tuition tax credit? What leverage would he have? What will his leverage be then? Republicans might then do the middle class tax cuts but there affect only generally more to the upper middle class or single people, middle class families will be pounded. Essentially all of you here are writing off the 47% of Americans to stick it to a small subset of people earning between 250 and 450 (and to some degree above that amount, but we are only talking about 6,000 to people making millions of dollars a year). And I don't see it becoming permanent, there is the Byrd rule after all. Do you really see this passing with more than 60 seats in the Senate? Every Republican will want to vote no so they can say they stuck to the pledge and there are already a number of Democrats who will also say no (as well as Sanders) so if Democrats do it right they can push it through reconciliation and have a sunset provision. As to attacking SS or Medicare, well I favor a chained CPI with provisions for the very poor. I know so many seniors who are gambling tonight at Sands while I have to stay home and eat leftover Turkey. We have to tackle entitlements but let Republicans own it.

- blackton

December 31, 2012 at 7:54pm

All he had to do was let the Bush tax cuts expire and bring forward a bill for middle class tax cuts coupled with UI relief and the various tax credits. In the bargain, he could have required that the debt-ceiling be raised high enough to get us to the next budget cycle, when spending is supposed to be fought it. And that is all without doing anything at all about the sequestration. How long do you think the Republicans could refuse to vote for such a bill? A week? Two? They would have been tying a noose around their necks and jumping off. If they really dug in their heels, the Democrats could eat them alive before 2014 and sweep those elections, finally being in a position to fix all this shit. Forget the Byrd rule. If the Senate votes to make most of the Bush tax cuts permanent, it votes. If the House joins and the President signs, it is law. There is no Byrd rule in the Constitution. But maybe the reports about making the non-extended cuts permanent are wrong. Yes, this is all part of the continuing attack on SS and Medicare, running a deficit in the operating budget while demanding that the entitlements be at or near surplus to enable that deficit, as has occurred for all the Republican years since 1980. You have to understand the play to see why Obama, in abandoning the principle of operating balance or surplus, is enabling the Republicans -- and doing so when his leverage was at the maximum.

- roidubouloi

December 31, 2012 at 8:21pm

bring forward a bill for middle class tax cuts Why would Boehner bring that bill forward? They could pass a bill that does exactly what Obama laid out minus the extension of the EITC, ui, etc. heck, they can go all the way down to 250K and the people who will be hurt most are the 47% who rely on these things. And you can't say forget the Byrd rule otherwise Bush would have said the same thing back in 2001. Beyond this as the fiscal cliff is already effectively past since the House won't be voting on it for a few days so I ask again, what is the leverage? Obama wants these refunds for the 47%, Republicans want tax cuts for the rich. If there is a sunset for all of this then I am fine with this. Taxes are going up, spending is not being touched. The only thing I don't like about this is the debt ceiling but where will Republicans get the revenue? All Obama has to do is say to Boehner you pass everything you want in the House and you own it, their support amongst seniors would collapse. Or we can take it all out of defense, and Republicans will collapse again.

- blackton

December 31, 2012 at 9:00pm

The Republicans couldn't possibly refuse to enact a middle-class tax cut because it did not include tax cuts for the rich and did include middle class and working class credits and UI relief. Not a prayer. They couldn't have resisted that pressure for more than a few days. Their own constituents would have been screaming for their heads. The Byrd rule only matters to the extent the Senate chooses to observe it. If it doesn't, it doesn't. It does not bind the Senate except to the extent the Senate chooses to be bound. You gotta know how to play the cards, blackton.

- roidubouloi

December 31, 2012 at 9:17pm

The Democrats couldn't possibly refuse to enact a middle-class tax cut because it did not include working class credits and UI relief. Not a prayer. Boehner controls the cards in that he controls the docket in the House. are you really this hung up on this 200K in the midst of high unemployment and record low interest rates? Yes I agree this is not the best stimulus but it is better than a contractionary plan. In any event Pelosi, Reid, McConnell and Obama all signed of on it. Maybe the House Republicans will kill the bill. But as the rates will go up then technically they won't be voting for a tax hike. And if they do kill the deal, what makes you think if they are this crazy that they won't continue to be crazy?

- blackton

December 31, 2012 at 9:27pm

http://www.redstate.com/2012/12/31/fiscal-deal-tax-hikes-green-pork-stimulus-oh-my/

- blackton

December 31, 2012 at 9:37pm

what are you talking about? Boehner controls nothing. Sure he could refuse to bring a Senate bill to the floor. Sure the Republicans are crazy. But that doesn't mean they are willing to withstand any political pressure from constituents. The whole point is that their craziness increases directly with the perception, correct, that it is a way to gain concessions from Obama. If they had let taxes go up and immediately, at the open of business in 2013, passed a bill in the Senate providing for middle tax class tax cuts, with all the goodies you want, the President is declaring that he is ready to sign the Senate bill as soon as the House adopts it, why do you think the Republicans could hold out for 10 minutes? They would be staring at political death, offending literally everyone in the country other than the über-rich. "But to achieve those goals, Obama cannot cede new ground. He really can't negotiate on the debt ceiling. And he really must get deficit reduction that balances revenue with cuts. If the last 72 hours have made you doubt his ability to do these things, you have plenty of company." Jonathan Cohn, in his piece about the deal. There is a lot of damage done when you insist, repeatedly, that you will not sign a new deal that does not restore Clinton tax rates for incomes above $250,000 and then proceed to do just that. Yeah, the redstate guy is screaming, because he wants to make crazy and ignore the fact that all that the Democrats had to do for taxes to go up was exactly nothing. Given the Republican pledge not to let tax rates rise -- a pledge that had no power whatsoever to keep -- he wants to get them to toughen up when they do have leverage, in the coming debt ceiling hostage crisis. If this is what Obama does when he has, literally, all the cards, how do you think it is going to go when he doesn't? The very reason for Jonathan Cohn's doubts, and mine. Obama proves again that he doesn't know how to negotiate.

- roidubouloi

January 1, 2013 at 2:35am

At the very least, he should have gone over the cliff and started to sweat the Republicans before agreeing to any deal. But he showed, again, that he cannot stand to leave the room without a deal. Can't bluff, can't stick, can't negotiate.

- roidubouloi

January 1, 2013 at 2:36am

At the very least, he should have gone over the cliff and started to sweat the Republicans before agreeing to any deal. But he showed, again, that he cannot stand to leave the room without a deal. Can't bluff, can't stick, can't negotiate.

- roidubouloi

January 1, 2013 at 2:36am

"I'm also curious: with drofnats it's Neville Chamberlain, with roid it's Churchill. I mean, come on guys! I too am in favor of the over-the-cliff-first option for a number of reasons laid out over the last couple of weeks. But -- big 'but' -- I don't go around posturing as if it's Munich in 1938, which does nothing but drain out any force or conviction from the original, quite legitimate, argument." You are being deliberately obtuse, ironyroad. Neither drofnats nor I thinks that the scale of the consequences of this deal is comparable related to the consequences of Munich. The point, rather, is about how you deal with thugs and bullies and the unfortunate reality that appeasing them, while perhaps postponing the pain, only makes matters worse in the end because the bullies are misled into believing they will never be stopped and keep ratcheting up their demands. Obama was holding all the cards here, but still had to "make a deal" because he simply cannot bear not to. Do I need to explain that Churchill's point was precisely that the appeasement would not in the end avoid the war, as it will not in the end avoid the necessity of saying no to the Republican crazies and letting them bear the political consequences, at great pain to the nation? There is no way to avoid the pain because the Republicans will in the end insist on inflicting it and there is no means to prevent them doing so. We can only manage things so that, when they do, there is no doubt in the mind of the public that they are responsible. Obama just blew a golden opportunity to make them both bear the blame and then fold completely.

- roidubouloi

January 1, 2013 at 2:48am

Relax, roid, you don't need to expain it because I am quite as educated in history as you are. You do, however, need to grasp that using particularly grotesque, fraught, or loaded analogies can backfire on the user. Utilizing parallels to Munich in '38, as you and drofnats have consistently done these last few weeks, sets out a position that implies that anyone opposing your view is the same as an appeaser of Nazism. It's exactly the same kind of (non-)argument that Noga and a few others deploy in relation to, for example, anyone supporting attempts to find a solution to the Iranian nuclear threat short of war. There, the threat to Jewish existence is symbolically transferred from Europe under the shadow of Hitler in 1938 to the Middle East in 2013. So, I'm puzzled in the extreme why you would oppose the parallel in circumstances where it's at least symbolically available, and yet defend it in circumstances where its presence is ludicrous to the point of idiocy.

- ironyroad

January 1, 2013 at 3:35am

Gee, irony. From your comments, it was awfully hard to tell that you knew the history or actually understood Churchill's point. No, I haven't made consistent use of analogies to Munich these past few weeks, but go ahead and think so of it makes you feel better. And, no, the analogy does not imply that anyone opposing my views is an appeaser of Nazism. Indeed, the analogy says nothing at all about anyone who opposes my views, or those of drofnats for that matter. The analogy is about what comes of appeasing bullies and hostage-takers and then imagining that one has succeeded by demonstrating that one can be successfully bullied when it tends to induce even more of the behavior you are attempting to mitigate. That's not really so complicated, is it? You, however, want to impute a hyperbolic interpretation, that intentionally misses the obvious point, in order to, to . . . what? Teach us, by mere virtue of the fact that this is not Munich, that Obama actually made a good deal for the country, one that, in the course of time, will prove itself to be such? Well then, argue the point instead of trying to exaggerate the opposing point of view until you can claim it is absurd. The reason why analogies between Munich and Iran are misplaced is that they too intentionally try to divert attention from what is relevant. Very few of those who support attempts to solve the Iran problem short of war are advocating compromising with Iran in the hope that this will induce better behavior or even the abandonment of its program. Rather, the question from which the Munich analogizers want to divert are attention is one of strategy and tactics, of costs and benefits. Does attacking Iran actually hold the prospect of much damage to its nuclear program? Are the economic consequences of doing so for the world much more costly than the costs imposed on Iran? Can the world better adapt to disruption of Iranian oil supply, as it appears to be doing, by ratcheting up sanctions, without at the same time exposing the Persian Gulf to closure? Claiming, falsely, that those who don't see war as the next thing to attempt are appeasing as at Munich evades all those questions by falsely imputing the premise, that anyone is proposing to compromise with Iran as a means of solving the problem. One needs to pay attention to the point of any analogy, because it is, after all, an analogy. That means that certain aspects of the analogy are relevant any many are not. No one here is suggesting that the fiscal cliff deal has consequences remotely comparable to those of Munich. And you don't really think that anyone is suggesting any such thing. You just find it convenient to claim so as a way of avoiding the question whether Obama is appeasing the crazy Republicans, with ever worse consequences, or dealing with them effectively. Do you have anything to say to the point, or are you going to limit yourself to the politically correct usage of Munich as an analogy? What, pray tell, do you think is the correct approach to Republican intransigence, lies, bullying, and hostage-taking? Enlighten us, please, so that we can understand the alternative.

- roidubouloi

January 1, 2013 at 12:24pm

roi, no he didn't hold all the cards because some of the cards were in areas that Republicans wold have been happy to throw away, like the EITC, tuition tax credits, child credit, and UI extension. There is absolutely no way to force Republicans to enact those especially when they could enact a bill that does precisely what Obama said in his campaign, which is hold taxes at 250 but nix the rest of this. I personally feel this compromise was necessary and valid, trade 200k for these items. And technically we did go over the cliff. It passed with 89 votes in the Senate (which surprised me) so 2 things can happen, the House can pass it or they can blow it up. If they blow it up then they really are nuts and you are fooling yourself that they will be amendable to pressure. If they don't then many families can refrain from eating dog food to survive. Again, this passed with 89 votes, so this means that nearly every Democrat in the Senate is as stupid as you think Obama is. As to the debt deal I am in favor of the trillion dollar platinum coin option and then enjoy watching Republicans go nuts. There simply is no other necessary revenue to cut unless you take an axe to entitlements.

- blackton

January 1, 2013 at 12:53pm

roid, either you want a normal discussion or you don't -- if so, please leave the patronizing tone out of it. That said, if you haven't used the Munich analogy a lot in recent times, then I apologize for suggesting that you have. Certainly drofnats has, and indeed that was noticeable because it has been continually deployed by others in the Iran discussions. I was in favor -- as I have said many times -- of Obama taking a harder line with the Republicans than he has done, for the reasons frequently laid out here and elsewhere. In particular, I think not extending the payroll tax reduction while allowing the 39% tax borderline to rise to $450k is a betrayal of people who are the actual middle class. Indeed, in certain contexts, I think a readiness to negotiate can itself be a wrong move (example, the debt ceiling "crisis"). Nevertheless I object -- again for reasons I've laid out -- to the use of the Munich analogy which is hyperbolic to say the least. FWIW, I accept your point that one can use only one aspect of an analogy without all other implications being in play (e.g. people who disagree are appeasers of fascism). However, the analogy has been used so often on these boards -- and with precisely that implication -- that anyone might judge it inadvisable to bring into play again.

- ironyroad

January 1, 2013 at 4:10pm

Irony, your 3:35am post was nothing if not patronizing. You are merely getting back a small helping of what you are dishing out. I can certainly understand that you don't like it. If so, best to refrain. Then a "normal discussion" is possible. Reports are confusing, but seem to say that some of the Bush tax cuts are being made permanent. This is perhaps the worst outcome of the entire deal. The raid on SS and Medicare to balance the budget is next up. Just wait. One can think that the Munich analogy is hyperbolic and best not used, and say so, without at the same time refusing to understand the relevant point of the analogy and then addressing it. That would be a contribution to normal discussion.

- roidubouloi

January 1, 2013 at 9:13pm

Here is how thoroughly lousy this deal is: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/02/us/politics/a-new-breed-of-republicans... Obama didn't just cave, he has enshrined most of the Bush tax cuts into permanent law permanently crippling the government.

- roidubouloi

January 1, 2013 at 11:00pm

The only patronizing note in my 3:35 a.m. post was this: "Relax, roid, you don't need to expain it because I am quite as educated in history as you are. You do, however, need to grasp that using particularly grotesque, fraught, or loaded analogies can backfire on the user." That was, however, in reply to this, from you: "Do I need to explain that Churchill's point was precisely that the appeasement would not in the end avoid the war, as it will not in the end avoid the necessity of saying no to the Republican crazies and letting them bear the political consequences, at great pain to the nation?" I'd suggest backing off from who started the patronizing style. So, once again: no, you don't need to explain it. I'm a very intelligent individual and I understand your point perfectly (without necessarily agreeing 100%). But the analogy is particularly offensive as (1) it has been used here on TNR -- as you well know -- in other contexts as I detailed above, and (2) there are counter-argument to yours that have been made in favor of the the White House's position (e.g. by blackton) that are not equivalent to arguments for appeasing fascism.

- ironyroad

January 2, 2013 at 12:29am

And that's pretty much all I have to say about "Munich" analogies.

- ironyroad

January 2, 2013 at 12:38am

Come on Roi, are you aware just how long Clinton's tax rates lastest? It was passed in August of 1993 and lasted only 4 years with the Taxpayer relief act of August 1997 when the top capital gains rate fell from 28% to 20%. The 15% bracket was lowered to 10%. What is it now? 20-Percent Capital Gains Rate for Certain High Income Individuals. The bill retains the zero percent tax rate on long-term gains, modifies the 15% rate, and proposes a new 20% rate. Starting in 2013 the tax rates on long-term gains would be: 0% if income falls below the 25% tax bracket 15% if income falls at or above the 25% tax bracket but below the new 39.6% rate 20% if income falls in the 39.6% tax bracket As to the permanent nature of the cuts, nothing is permanent. The only thing I liked about the sunset was it gave Democrats leverage but long term I am not that concerned. By the end of this decade, if not earlier, Republicans will be done in by demographics. If the economy rebounds enough by 2016 a Hillary Clinton will have a Democratic House and Senate and will be free to raise taxes on the rich, in fact she can run on raising taxes on people making above 250k. This 5 year extension of the eitc, child tax credit, etc. is a huge relief. I just bought a house in the states so things would have been very tight. Now I can breathe again.

- blackton

January 2, 2013 at 1:27am

That's a blessing. blackton seems to have missed a few things, including the fact that most people will see their taxes go up because of the end to the payroll tax holiday and most of the Bush tax cuts have been made permanent. I recall him saying that, as long as there was a sunset provision, he thought this was a good deal. Well, there isn't. The consequence of this deal is permanently to lock in the revenue shortage of the Federal government. The non-defense operating budget has already declined as a percentage of GDP by 5% since 2000. Unless we are going to gut the government, or make big cuts in defense spending (not bloody likely), the Republicans are now going to get their wish keep taxes low on upper income earners by reducing SS and Medicare benefits. This deal stinks, quite apart from whether it is just to latest episode of Republican hostage-taking that will certainly not now end. Obama has noo balls, and a very grandiose conception of himself as a post-partisan when what we need is an effective partisan. The good news is that my personal finances will hardly be touched, which makes me wonder why I even bother to worry about a bunch of people who cannot even figure out where their own interests lie.

- roidubouloi

January 2, 2013 at 1:28am

"Instead, the emerging deal will reinforce the convictions that have made the GOP such a toxic presence in Washington. If Obama will cave even when he’s got all the leverage, when won’t he cave?" That about sums it up, courtesy of Mr. Scheiber.

- roidubouloi

January 2, 2013 at 1:30am

Well, I guess any deal that is good for you, blackton, is good for the country.

- roidubouloi

January 2, 2013 at 1:43am

come on roi, that last post was just silly. I also talked about the 2 million unemployed, beyond that damn straight I represent the fundamentals of our society, a working class family with young children. If my family is screwed (which is what would have happened if they did precisely what Charles Krauthammer wanted them to, which was a straight up tax cut for 250,000 leaving out what he called unnecessary parts) then how is that good for America? Or do you think working class families should be happy with just a continuation of the tax rates? So we would lose 5,000 in household income but get....lets see...by taxing those people from 250000 to 450000 would have helped me out HOW? You continue to insist that Republicans would have caved, that Boehner could not have come up with his own bill which would have cut the legs out from under Obama by cutting it to 300 or even 250k. Somehow you insist that these other provisions would have been put in by whom exactly I don't know. I am curious, what exactly is your fantasy version of how this bill would have played out? Repubicans would have done what exactly? Passed everything on your wish list including caving in on the debt limit because...somehow Red state Republicans in completely safe districts would have capitulated? The bill passed overwhelmingly with Democratic support in both the House and the Senate. I was actually stunned that so many Republicans in the Senate went along with it that it didn't need to adhere to the Byrd rule. Now unless you think even people like Bernie Sanders in NH have no balls then maybe you are misreading what was feasible. Bernie Fucking Sanders voted for it. Go ahead and call him a wuss too. As to the payroll tax cut, actually I am not in favor of that as it hurts Social security's bottom line and would give Republicans an excuse to cut benefits down the line. As long as it shows a surplus (which it does only under normal rates) then they don't have a leg to stand on. As to the chained Cola, for me that is not bad as its effect will be a long time in coming and hence will also shore up the bottom line long term for Social security

- blackton

January 2, 2013 at 2:26am

Not silly at all, blackton. Just read the last line of your last post. Most people are losing household income in this deal. I guess not you. The fact that so many Republicans voted for this deal, to your surprise, should tell you that it was a much better deal than they thought they would get two weeks down the road. Don't ask me, ask Lindsay Graham. There was very little to be lost in going over the cliff and letting the Republicans stare at what they have created. Do you really think the deal would have been worse two weeks from now? Basically, you view seems to be that it doesn't matter what was agreed to in order to extend UI and that that justifies whatever else was done. If you think this deal is not going to come back to haunt both SS and Medicare, I don't think you understand it. But than, those don't seem to be of immediate concern to you personally, hence nothing to be concerned about. Trust me, blackton. You are being screwed.

- roidubouloi

January 2, 2013 at 10:44am

But if I were concerned chiefly about my own finances, I would be wearing a shit-eating grin right now.

- roidubouloi

January 2, 2013 at 10:45am

Which is how I know that you are being screwed, whether you know it or not.

- roidubouloi

January 2, 2013 at 10:46am

As for my "fantasy" about the deal that could have been had, you did notice that the Republicans in the House folded, didn't you, despite the belief that the would never approve of any tax increase? They are in their way as full of crap as Obama.

- roidubouloi

January 2, 2013 at 10:47am

roi, um...the majority of Republicans in the House voted no. How is that a fold?

- blackton

January 2, 2013 at 12:56pm

1511 Republicans voted no, 85 yes and nearly all the yes votes came from Republicans from blue states. And you never laid out exactly what you think Obama could have gotten away with. Didn't the brinkmanship of the debt ceiling debacle mean anything to you? And yes, I am aware that payroll taxes will go up, I don't consider this being screwed. Beyond this all, it is done. you can go and vote for the green party and feel morally superior and let Republicans win in 2014 or you just get over this. in any event, we will never know what might have happened. For me it is the bird in my hand, for you it is the two in the bush.

- blackton

January 2, 2013 at 1:16pm

How is that a fold? How did the bill get to the floor? Easy for a Republican to vote no knowing that the bill had votes to pass. Um There was no brink. As I have patiently explained, there was no chance that the Republicans could have held out for long against a tax cut for income below $250,000 bill merely because it included middle and lower class credits and UI relief, all politically popular, for the sake of tax cuts for the rich that are politically unpopular. Not to mention the fact that, until this deal was made, making the Bush tax cuts permanent was nowhere in sight. It came out of the blue as a gift from Obama to Republicans, something they have been unable to achieve even when they controlled the Congress. I don't have to feel morally superior, blackton. I can just count my money. You, on the other hand, are fucked. You just don't know it -- yet. As the income distribution continues to be more skewed to the richest and taxation grows more regressive, you will figure it out eventually.

- roidubouloi

January 2, 2013 at 9:00pm